Bible, Theology & Philosophy

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6.

Speculative Fantasy and Primary Imagination

The simple fantasy is the power to envision realities that we have never encountered. The speculative fantasy is the power to envision things that never were and never will be. The speculative fantasy works in much the same way as the simple fantasy, i.e., by combining elements that are already present in the memory. By combining these elements, the mind creates new arrangements that exist nowhere outside of the fantasy itself.

Suppose we combine the following elements: body of a serpent, wings of a bat, legs and head of a lizard, size of a tree trunk. The result, of course, is a dragon. If we further combine the elements of fire and breath, we end up with a fire-breathing dragon, which is the best kind. Even if there are no dragons in the real world, we have no trouble imagining one.

The Bible sometimes requires us to employ the speculative fantasy. For example, Jotham’s fable in the book of Judges has trees meeting to elect a king. They reason, speak, and hold a council. This fable clearly combines elements that never occur together in the real world.

We have discussed two classifications of fantasy: simple and speculative. Many critics have seen fantasy as inferior to other forms of imagination. Indeed, some classify fantasy as a separate thing from imagination altogether. Some even believe that fantasy is detrimental.

What are their reasons? One is that fantasy creates nothing new, but simply recombines elements from memory. Another is that fantasy is sometimes used as a mechanism to escape reality, and therefore does not enlarge our understanding of the world.

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.

Memory and Simple Fantasy

The nature of the imagination has been discussed extensively by philosophers, poets, and critics. Since the Enlightenment, prominent thinkers in this conversation have included Thomas Hobbes (who divided the imagination into simple and compound), Joseph Addison (who differentiated primary from secondary pleasures of the imagination), common-sense philosopher Dugald Stewart (who distinguished the fancy from the imagination), William Wordsworth (who linked fancy to the temporal and imagination to the eternal), and Samuel Taylor Coleridge (who not only distinguished fancy from imagination, but divided imagination into primary and secondary faculties).

Why all of the discussion? The reason is that we ordinarily use the word imagination to cover several related but distinguishable operations of the mind. While the literature that discusses these operations tends to be rather opaque, we can perhaps review some obvious distinctions.

If we take the term imagination in its common, loose sense, it refers to our capacity to form and entertain mental images. We are able see objects with the mind’s eye that are not actually present to the sight. Under this definition, the most common form of imagination is simple memory. When we remember a thing, we are considering its image in our mind. We are inwardly re-calling its image into being.

Already in the act of remembering, disparities occur between individuals. Suppose three people see a snake. Later on, when they recall it, one remembers the snake’s position (it was wrapped around the limb of a tree). The second recalls its color (it was a vivid green with yellow markings). The third remembers its manner (it was showing its fangs and hissing—and the fangs were really big!). All three people are recalling the same snake, and they are all remembering it truly as far as their individual recollections are concerned. Nevertheless, they are all remembering the snake differently.

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

Imagining the Transcendent

We have already emphasized the distinction between immanent reality (the here-and-now, sensible order) and transcendent reality (the eternal order that is outside of and above immanent reality). As Christians, we must be careful not to deny either the actual reality or the fundamental goodness of the immanent order. That is the error of Gnosticism. Nevertheless, we do deny its ultimacy. We recognize that the transcendent is prior to and above the immanent. If we wish to know the world as it ought to be known, then we must have at least a glimpse into the mind of God.

In order for us to get that glimpse, it must be given to us. It must come from God’s side. If God does not speak to us, then we shall forever remain ignorant of the eternal world, and consequently, we shall remain doomed to misconstrue the world in which we live.

Philosophers have asked certain questions about our dependence upon revelation. Is it possible for God to communicate with us? Is the eternal of such a nature that it can be grasped by human minds? Is human language even capable of bearing genuine revelation? These are important questions.

We need not speculate about the answers. We need merely to point to the Bible. The Bible is genuinely God’s message to us. It allows us to glimpse God’s mind and to discern enough of transcendent reality in order to let us understand immanent reality. For those who know and love God, there can be no questioning of the Bible’s authority.